I am guessing from what Allan says that this is one of the later Fleur weights, probably a second, having no etching but an unpolished base, and that someone added the 'sig' later. (Karel, CIIG is what it looks like CG for Caithness Glass and II for a second quality weight.)

Now what puzzles me, as it so often does, is just why is this weight a second? In what way does it fall below the standards set by Caithness? I ask because MY weight, which I pictured in my previous reply, is NOT a second! Even though it has a slight slipping of something in the centre of the flower, which one might think would cause it to be rejected, it is fully etched on the base with Caithness Scotland, its name, and an inscribed number. Yet Karel's apparent 'second' appears perfect to me! There's obviously something which didn't come out as the Caithness designers intended it to, but goodness knows what, is all I can say!

Hi Leni,Although it doesnt show well on the picture the base is in fact polished, loads of scratches but I can see clear through the signature to the bottom of the flower!If this was a second the only reason I can see is, if you look at the picture of the weight, at the 4 o'clock position on the rim of the flower and between the leaves at the 8 o'clock position you can see right through, there is no base material. But somehow that doesnt figure if one compares that the the slipping of the cane in yours I'll contact the seller and find out if he knows where the weight came from.Kind regards,

Leni,I don't know why your weight is a first to be honest, because normally a defect like the cracked flower would usually make it a second.I can only assume that it slipped through the quality control net.I would also assume like you that there is no defect on Karelm's weight which suggests it was a first quality before the signature mystery occurred .It is highly unlikely that it was a member of staff that signed the weight as most of them were quite used to the diamond engraving pens we use.

When was Caithness fleur made? I ask, because my fast pass at the signature was that it was a very medical 1988!

Logged

Hello & Welcome to the Board! Sometimes my replies are short & succinct, other times lengthy. Apologies in advance if they are not to your satisfaction; my main concern is to be accurate for posterity & to share my limited knowledgeFor information on exhibitions & events and to see images of my new work join my Facebook grouphttps://www.facebook.com/adamaaronsonglassIntroduction to Glassblowing course:a great way to spend an afternoon http://www.zestgallery.com/glass.

"This piece was designed by Colin Terris - unfortunately our records do not tell us who made each individual weight but it is likely that Allan Scott would have made the lampwork flower.The fact that your weight does not have any base markings is a bit of an enigma! I would be interested to hear if the seller gets back to you with more information. I have asked people who were here in 1987 if they recognise the signature but no-one does.I am very sorry that we do not have much information on this piece but it does appear to be a real mystery!Kind regards,Rhona BurnsBrand ManagerCaithness Glass"The previous owner has still not responde and I sent a reminder today. I think somebody nicked it and signed/marked it and gave it to his/her love/mom/dad/etcKind regards